Seeing as the Torah is about to incorporate every lost article, why does the Torah insert specifically "Chamoro" and "Simlaso"?
Ramban: To incorporate a donkey even though it is a Tamei animal and a garment , even though it is not as valuable to the owner as an animal, and even though the garment is not commonly lost. 1
Bava Metzi'a, 27a: The Torah inserts "Simlaso", to teach us that one is obligated to return an article that is clearly not Hefker via Simanim, 2 and "Chamor", to teach us that one must return a lost article, not only via Simanim on the article itself, 3 but also via Simanim on its accessories, such as a donkey via Simanim on the saddle. 4
Seforno: And one might therefore assume that the owner intentionally declared it Hefker.
Since articles of clothing are generally have owners and marks of identification (Rashi).
It would have been more appropriate to mention Simlah first; presumably, the Torah mentions Chamor first, in order to juxtapose it to Shor and Seh in Pasuk 1.
See Torah Temimah, note 19, who elaborates.
Why does the Torah need to add "ve'Chen Ta'Asei le'Chol Aveidas Achicha"?
Tosfos ha'Rosh (in Bava Metzi'a 27a): To form a Prat ('Shor, Seh, Chamor and Simlah') and a K'lal - ("Kol Aveidas Achicha"), which includes everything. 1
Ramban: To teach us that one is obligated to return even plain household articles that are not een as valuable as a garment that one wears.
Though the question arises why the torah needs to mention the P'rat at all.
What is the word "le'Chol Aveidas Achicha" coming to include?
Bava Metzi'a, 26b: It incorporates lost land 1 in the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah.
See Torah Temimah, note 21.
Why does the Torah insert the word "Achicha"?
Bava Kama, 113b: To preclude an article belonging to a Nochri from the Mitzvah of Hashavas Aveidah. 1
Avodah Zarah, 26b: To incorporate a lost article belonging to a Mumar - who eats Neveilos le'Te'avon (for pleasure) 2 , in the Din of Hashavas Aveidah.
What are the implications of the (otherwise superfluous) words "asher Tovad mimenu"?
Bava Metzi'a, 27a: It implies that if the lost article is not worth a P'rutah (the owner is not concerned about the loss), one is not obligated to return it. 1
Rambam (Hilchos Hashahvas Aveidah, 11:11: It implies that he article got lost by itself, but not if it got lost due to the negligence of the owner. 2
Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfkluous) word "asher Tovad mimenu"?
Bava Metzi'a, 22b: To teach us that if the article is lost, not only from the owner, but also from everybody else - such as where it is being carried away by a river that overflowed - one is not obligated to return it. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 26.
What are the implications of the word "u'Metzasah'?
Bava Metzi'a, 2a: It implies that one transgresses the Asei of "Hasheiv Teshiveim" only once he has picked up the article. 1
Even though he transgresses the La'av of "Lo Suchal Lehis'aleim" by not picking it up - See Torah Temimah, note 28.
Having written "Lo Sir'eh ... va'Hisalamta" in Pasuk 1, why does the Torah repeat "Lo Suchal le'His'aleim!"?
Sifri: To add a La'av against not picking up the lost article and announcing it.
Moshav Zekenim (citing Targum Onkelos) 1 : Above, it is to act as if he does not see it. Here, it means to cover it - to put it under his garment to hide it - in order to keep it.
Targum Yonasan: In Pasuk 1, the Torah means that one may not see the lost article and take his mind off it as if he did not see it, wheress here it means that he is not permitted to withhold it from the owner, but is obligated to eturn it to him.
It seems that this is his intent, just there is a printing mistake. (PF)
